Peer review has long been a staple of writing instruction, but it rarely works well without structure. Students often give vague praise or focus on spelling errors, leaving writers with little to act on. In a Richard III unit, where essays require interpretation and evidence, unstructured peer review may skip the most important issues entirely. Pairing peer review with AI-generated feedback offers a way to strengthen both.

The value of peer review lies partly in the reviewer's learning. Reading a classmate's essay about Richard's manipulation of Lady Anne exposes students to different approaches, and articulating what works or does not work sharpens their own sense of quality. Teachers who emphasize this benefit often find that students take the process more seriously.

AI feedback addresses a different need. It can respond quickly, apply the rubric consistently, and flag issues that a peer may miss, such as a thesis that restates the prompt or a quotation with no explanation. When students receive this feedback before peer review, they can fix basic problems and bring stronger drafts to their classmates, which makes the peer discussion more productive.

A workflow that layers the two

A simple sequence begins with students drafting an essay and submitting it for AI feedback, which they use to make initial revisions. They then exchange revised drafts with a partner and complete a structured peer review using a checklist aligned to the rubric. Finally, they write a brief reflection explaining which feedback they used and why, and submit the essay to the teacher.

• Draft: students write a complete first version of the essay on a Richard III prompt
• AI feedback: students receive rubric-based comments and make revisions to address obvious gaps
• Peer review: partners use a checklist to evaluate thesis, evidence, and analysis, noting one strength and one suggestion
• Reflection: students explain what changes they made in response to each source of feedback
• Teacher review: the teacher reads the final draft and the reflection, focusing on interpretive depth and growth

Training students to give useful peer feedback

Students need explicit instruction in how to review. Model the process by reviewing a sample paragraph together, demonstrating how to identify the thesis, locate evidence, and ask a clarifying question. Provide sentence starters for constructive comments, such as asking what a particular quotation shows about Richard, to keep feedback focused on the text.

Establish norms for respectful, honest critique. Students often hesitate to point out weaknesses, so frame criticism as a service to the writer. Pair students thoughtfully, considering both skill level and working relationships, and rotate partners over the course of the year so that each student benefits from different perspectives.

Setting limits on AI use

Clarity about the role of AI feedback prevents confusion. Students should understand that the tool evaluates the draft against the rubric and does not write the essay for them, and that they remain responsible for the ideas and wording. Reviewing the feedback together in class can help students interpret it critically rather than accepting every suggestion.

Teachers should check the quality of AI feedback periodically, ensuring that it aligns with their expectations and the specific demands of the assignment. If the feedback seems generic, refine the rubric or add more context about the prompt. A well-informed tool produces more useful comments and fewer misleading ones.

Evaluating whether the system works

Compare the quality of final drafts with those from previous years or earlier units. Look for improvements in the areas targeted by feedback, such as the use of evidence or the clarity of the thesis. Student reflections can also reveal which parts of the process were most helpful and which felt like busywork.

Adjust the process based on what you learn. Some classes may need more structure in peer review, while others may benefit from less. The goal is a system in which students receive timely, useful feedback from multiple sources and learn to use it to improve their writing, a skill that will serve them long after the unit ends.